This judgment concerns an
appeal filed by several Personal Assistants (PAs) employed by the Government of
Bihar, challenging a decision that denied them pay parity with colleagues who
were initially appointed as Steno Typists and later upgraded to the position of
PA. The core issue revolves around alleged pay anomalies arising from the
implementation of the Assured Career Progression (ACP) scheme, which the
appellants claim has resulted in Steno Typists-turned-PAs earning more than PAs
directly recruited into the role. This analysis delves into the details of the
case, examining the arguments presented by both sides and the court’s reasoning
in arriving at its decision.
Background
The case originates from
a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 4501 of 2014) filed by the appellants, who were
directly recruited as PAs between 1978 and 1986. The crux of their grievance
lies in the perceived pay disparity between them and those who entered the PA
cadre via a different route: starting as Steno Typists and subsequently being
upgraded.
The State government had
a policy of merging Stenographers Grade I and II with PAs, provided they passed
certain examinations, effective from March 1, 1977. Steno Typists who didn’t
pass the required examination for the merger were given an upgrade on August 7,
1987. This created three distinct categories within the PA cadre:
- Those who were merged from
Stenographer Grade I and II. - Directly recruited PAs.
- Steno Typists who were later
upgraded.
The appellants, belonging
to the second category, argued that the implementation of the ACP scheme
exacerbated the pay gap. The Steno Typists who were upgraded on August 7, 1987,
were initially granted a 2nd ACP and then a 1st ACP. However, the same benefit
was not extended to the directly recruited PAs. This resulted in a situation
where Steno Typists, after receiving ACP benefits, ended up drawing more pay
than the directly recruited PAs.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants
essentially contended that they were facing a pay anomaly, as individuals who
joined the PA cadre later (through the Steno Typist route) were earning more
than them. This, they argued, was unjust and warranted a stepping up of their
pay to bring them on par with their colleagues.
To bolster their case,
the appellants’ counsel cited two key judgments:
- Commissioner and Secretary to
Government of Haryana and Ors vs. Ram Swarup Ganda and Ors:
This case dealt with a similar situation where junior employees, who were
initially in a lower grade and later promoted, were drawing more pay than
their seniors due to the ACP scheme. The Supreme Court ruled that in such
cases, seniors were entitled to a stepping up of their pay to remove the
anomaly. - Tejbir Singh Dagar and Ors. vs.
Union of India and Ors.: This Delhi High
Court case further supported the principle of removing pay anomalies where
juniors were earning more than their seniors due to different modes of
recruitment or career progression.
Court’s Observations
The court acknowledged
the undisputed fact that the appellants constituted a distinct class of
individuals who were directly recruited as PAs. The central question before the
court was whether this class was entitled to pay parity with Steno Typists who were
upgraded to the post of PA and were drawing higher pay.
The court then
highlighted the government’s policy behind extending the ACP benefit,
emphasizing that it was intended for employees who faced stagnation in a
particular post for an extended period (12/14 years in this case). The ACP
scheme aimed to alleviate frustration arising from a lack of promotions,
providing monetary benefits in the form of a higher grade pay without actually
granting a promotional post.
Court’s Conclusion
The court ultimately
dismissed the appeal, upholding the order of the learned Single Judge. The
decision rested on the following key points:
- Differentia in Recruitment:
The court recognized that the directly recruited PAs and the upgraded
Steno Typists belonged to two different classes with distinct modes of
recruitment. The directly recruited PAs entered the service based on their
qualifications and performance in a direct recruitment process. On the
other hand, the upgraded Steno Typists were initially recruited as Steno
Typists and later elevated to the PA cadre based on their experience and
performance as Steno Typists. - Object of ACP Scheme:
The court emphasized that the ACP scheme’s primary objective was to
address stagnation and provide financial relief to employees who had not
received promotions. It was not designed to create pay parity between
different cadres or to obliterate the differences arising from different
entry points and career paths. - No Fundamental Right to Equal
Pay: The court reiterated the
established legal position that there is no fundamental right to equal pay
for equal work, especially when the employees belong to different classes
with different qualifications, experiences, and responsibilities. The
principle of “equal pay for equal work” applies only when the
employees are similarly situated in all aspects. - Stepping Up of Pay:
The court distinguished the cases cited by the appellants, emphasizing
that those cases involved situations where the employees belonged to the
same cadre and faced pay anomalies due to the implementation of the ACP
scheme. In the present case, the directly recruited PAs and the upgraded
Steno Typists belonged to different cadres with different recruitment
rules and career progression paths. Therefore, the principle of stepping
up of pay was not applicable. - Financial Implications:
The court also took note of the potential financial implications of
granting pay parity to the appellants. It observed that doing so would
open the floodgates for similar claims from other cadres, leading to a
significant financial burden on the State government.
Implications
This judgment has
significant implications for government employees and the interpretation of ACP
schemes. It clarifies that:
- The ACP scheme is primarily intended
to address stagnation and not to create pay parity between different
cadres. - The principle of “equal pay for
equal work” applies only to employees who are similarly situated in
all aspects, including recruitment rules, qualifications, and
responsibilities. - Courts are cautious in interfering
with the government’s pay policies, especially when doing so would have
significant financial implications.
The case underscores the
importance of clearly defining the objectives and scope of ACP schemes to avoid
unintended consequences and potential litigation. It also highlights the need
for a transparent and equitable pay structure that recognizes the differences
in qualifications, experience, and responsibilities across different cadres of
government employees.
Read
the full judgement Below;
